Design CBR of Subgrade for Flexible Pavements

M. Amaranatha Reddy * K. Sudhakar Reddy** B. B. Pandey***

Abstract

The upper 500 mm of soil, whether in embankment or in cutting, compacted to a higher

density than that of the native soil below it is considered as the subgrade of a flexible pavement as per

the current practice in India. In case the existing embankment soil is weak, it is common to use

borrow materials of suitable quality compacted to a thickness of 500 mm. CBR of the subgrade is

often used for design of flexible pavements, where as the effective or the composite strength of its

subgrade and the embankment soil given by design CBR should be used for the design of flexible

pavements. This paper examines the issue of selecting an effective material property, CBR or

modulus value, for the combination of embankment soil and subgrade layer. Equivalent CBR values

for different types of embankment soil and the subgrade layers have been suggested using layered

elastic theory on the basis of equal subgrade deflection. It is found that the design subgrade CBR is

much lower than the CBR of the superior borrow material.

* Research Scholar, Civil Engg. Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur –721 302

** Associate Professor, Civil Engg. Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur –721 302

*** Professor, Civil Engg. Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur –721 302
1. INTRODUCTION

Subgrade plays a key role in the performance of pavements. Its property is the main

input to any pavement design procedure. The parameters commonly used to characterize the subgrade

include CBR, resilient modulus, modulus of subgrade reaction etc. Although mechanistic design

approaches require elastic (resilient) modulus of subgrade as input, a large number of the existing

design procedures are based on CBR value of the subgrade. Even in the case of some mechanistic

design methods, it is common practice to estimate the modulus value of the subgrade from its CBR

value using empirical relationships.

The subgrade forms the foundation of a pavement. The usual practice in India is to

compact upper 500 mm of the embankment1,2 to a higher density than that of the rest of the

embankment and this compacted layer is defined as the subgrade. In case the embankment soil is

weak, borrow material of higher strength is used as subgrade and the CBR of this layer is usually

taken as the design CBR for the design of flexible pavements irrespective of the CBR of the

embankment material below the 500 mm subgrade. This does not appear to be a sound practice since

it is the composite strength of the subgrade and the embankment soil below it that should enter into

the design rather than the strength of 500 mm thick subgrade alone. This paper presents a method for

computation of design (effective/equivalent) CBR of the subgrade for design of flexible pavements

taking into account CBR values of subgrade as well as embankment materials.

2. SUBGRADE MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION

A number of parameters have been used for characterizing subgrade in pavement design

methods. These include index properties, CBR, resilient modulus, modulus of subgrade reaction etc.
These properties are determined from laboratory or field tests. They can alternatively be estimated

from other parameters using empirical relationships. While the procedure for the determination of

CBR value in laboratory and field is well known, they can also be estimated from dynamic cone

penetrometer test results3. The relationship is given as

.log CBR =2.20 – 0.71 log(DCP)1.5 (1)

Where DCP is the penetration in mm per blow

The resilient modulus (MR) of subgrade is an important input to the mechanistic design methods. It

can be estimated using the following relationships

MR( MPa) ? 10 CBR for CBR ? 5% (2)

MR( MPa) ? 17.6(CBR)0.64 for CBR ? 5 % (3)

SHELL pavement design manual 4 uses Eq.2 for estimating the resilient modulus of subgrade soil.

AASHTO guidelines5 also recommend the use of Eq.2 in the absence of repeated load triaxial test

data.

3. SELECTION OF DESIGN CBR IN DIFFERENT GUIDELINES

IRC-37: 1984 2 recommends that the subgrade, whether in cut or fill, should be well

compacted to utilize its full strength and to economize on the overall thickness of pavement required.

The top 500mm portion of the subgrade should be compacted to 95-100 % of the modified density

for heavy volume roads. For thickness design purpose, the subgrade strength is assessed in terms of

the CBR of the subgrade soil at the most critical moisture conditions likely to occur. CBR value of

the remoulded subgrade soil is usually taken as the design CBR without any reference to the CBR of

the soil below the 500 mm subgrade.

 6
Austroads considered the following factors in determining the design strength of a

subgrade. (i) Compaction moisture content used and field density achieved (ii) Moisture changes

during service life (iii) Subgrade variability and (iv) Sequence of earthwork construction. While it is

suggested that the total thickness of pavement will be governed by the presence of weak layers below

design subgrade level, the method of evaluating effective subgrade support has not been discussed.

Asphalt institute 7 recommends the use of improved material between native soil and the

pavement structure. The improved subgrade is normally not required in the design and construction

of a full-depth asphalt pavement structure. It should be considered only when a subgrade that can not

support construction equipment is encountered. In such cases it is used as a working platform for

construction of the pavement layers. The use of the borrow material does not affect the design

thickness of the pavement structure. The resilient subgrade modulus value is estimated using CBR

values in the absence of vigorous laboratory tests. For cohesive subgrades, a minimum of 95 % of

AASHTO T 180, method D density (modified compaction) for the top 300mm and a minimum of 90

% for all fill areas below the top 300mm are recommended. For cohesionless subgrades, a minimum

of 100 % of modified compaction density for the top 300mm and a minimum of 95 % below this for

all the fill areas are recommended.

AASHTO Guide for design of pavement structures 5 recommends the use of resilient

modulus values for pavement design, which are based on the properties of the compacted layer of the

roadbed (subgrade) soil. However, in some cases where insitu materials are weak, it may be

necessary to include the consideration of the uncompacted foundation. In such cases, the design of

pavement structure is based on the average resilient modulus value.

8
The Japan Road association manual for asphalt pavement recommends the use of higher

quality material on weak foundation (having less than 2 % CBR) to obtain a design CBR value of 3
or more. For the purpose of estimation of effective subgrade CBR, the CBR value of the original soil

should be used as the CBR value of the bottom 200 mm of the imported soil. The expression for

estimating the effective CBR of subgrade is given as

CBReff ? ((T im? 200)CBRim ? 200 (CBRex )1 / 3 /T im )3

1/ 3
( 4)

where CBR eff ? effective subgrade CBR.

CBRim , CBRex ? CBR Values of imported and existing soil respectively

T im ? thickness of compacted imported soil mm

Example: If a subgrade with native soil CBR value of 1.5 % is to be filled to a depth of 1000 mm

with borrow material of CBR value 10 %, then the effective (new) subgrade value is

CBReff= (((1000-200) 101/3 +200 (1.5)1/3) /1000)3 = 7.44 %

4. DETERMINATION OF EFFECTIVE SUBGRADE STRENGTH

It is thus clear that if the compacted subgrade is laid over a weak soil, it is necessary to

evaluate the composite strength of the subgrade or the effective CBR of the subgrade for pavement

design. In this investigation, an attempt has been made to determine the equivalent subgrade CBR

values for the combination of natural soil bed and borrow material. Subgrade surface deflection under

the action of a single wheel load computed using layered elastic theory has been used as the

parameter to assess the equivalence. A number of combinations of natural and borrow soil have been

considered with different CBR values of both materials and different thicknesses of the subgrade

layer. The loading arrangement considered is a single wheel load of magnitude 40 kN acting over

circular contact area at a pressure of 560 kPa. The two-layer and the equivalent subgrade systems

with loading under consideration are shown in Figure.1.

 40 kN, 560 kPa 40 kN, 560 kPa

h Borrow material
h? ?

Existing soil Equivalent subgrade

a) Two layer system b) Single layer System

Figure 1 Two layer and Equivalent subgrade systems

The two-layer system has been analyzed using ELAYER computer program9 for which the inputs are

selected as given below.

Single wheel load = 40 kN

Contact pressure = 560 kPa

Poisson ratio = 0.4

Elastic modulus values of these two subgrade layers are estimated from their CBR values using

equations (2) and (3). Deflection is computed along the axis of symmetry of the wheel load. From the

computed surface deflection of the two-layer subgrade system, the corresponding modulus value of

the equivalent single layer subgrade is determined from the following equation.

? ? 2.0 ( 1 ? ? 2 ) p.a / E eq (5)

where E eq .is the elastic mod ulus value of equivalent Subgrade, MPa
? ? surface deflection, mm
p ? contact pressure MPa ? 0.56
a ? radius of load contact area ? 152.7 mm
? ? poisson ratio ? 0.4
The corresponding equivalent subgrade CBR value is backcalculated from the modulus values using

equations (2) and (3). For different CBR values of existing soil and borrow material, Tables 1 to 4

present the equivalent subgrade CBR values for various compacted thicknesses of borrow material.

Results are shown in graphical form in Figures 2 to 5.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Various conclusions drawn from the present study on the selection of design CBR of

subgrade for flexible pavements are given as: -

i) It is the composite strength of the subgrade layers of the embankment soil that

should form the basis for pavement design. More specifically, the CBR values of

the borrow material as well as the embankment soil must be considered in

arriving at the design CBR of the subgrade.

ii) Charts are presented for evaluation of design (equivalent / effective) CBR value

of subgrade for various combinations of native and borrow soils. Design CBR of

the subgrade is found to be much less than that of the borrow materials and it is

incorrect to use CBR of the borrow material alone as the CBR of the subgrade.

REFERENCES

1 Specifications for Road and Bridge Works, Ministry of Surface Transport, New Delhi, 1998.

2 IRC: 37-1984 Guide lines for the design of Flexible Pavements, IRC, New Delhi.

3 Jiannzhou Chen., Mustaque Hossain. and Todd M. Latorella. “Use of Falling Weight

Deflectometer and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Pavement Evaluation”, Transportation

Research Record, No.1665,1999.

4 Shell Pavement Design Manual- Asphalt Pavements and Overlays for Road Traffic, Shell

International Petroleum Company Limited, 1978,London.

5 Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 1993.

6 Pavement Design-A Guide to the Structural Design of Road Pavements, Austroads, Sydney,

Australia, 1992.

7 Thickness Design- Asphalt Pavements for Highways and Streets, Manual Series No: 1, Asphalt

Institute, September 1981.

8 Manual for Asphalt Pavement, 1989, Japan Road Association, Japan.

9 K. Sudhakar Reddy, Analytical Evaluation of Bituminous Pavements, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis,

Civil Engg. Dept., IIT, Kharagpur, 1993.

Table.1 Design Subgrade CBR Values for borrow material of compacted
thickness of 300 mm
Borrow Design Subgrade CBR values(%) for existing
material CBR CBR values of
value(%)
1.5 % 2.0% 2.5 % 3.0% 5.0% 7.0%
7 3.35 3.86 4.28 4.63 6.18 6.87
8 3.49 4.03 4.48 4.86 6.74 7.52
9 3.62 4.19 4.67 5.23 7.26 8.13
10 3.81 4.42 4.93 5.72 8.04 9.05
11 3.85 4.44 4.99 5.83 8.22 9.25
12 3.95 4.47 5.33 6.11 8.67 9.78
13 4.04 4.71 5.55 6.37 9.08 10.28
14 4.13 4.82 5.76 6.62 9.49 10.77
15 4.21 4.92 5.96 6.86 9.87 11.22
16 4.30 5.14 6.15 7.10 10.24 11.67
17 4.37 5.29 6.34 7.32 10.60 12.10
18 4.44 5.43 6.52 7.53 10.96 12.51
19 4.51 5.57 6.68 7.74 11.29 12.91
20 4.58 5.70 6.85 7.94 11.61 13.75
30 5.30 6.42 8.28 9.66 14.44 16.73
40 5.98 6.95 9.43 10.75 16.74 19.55
50 6.54 7.39 10.40 12.20 18.69 21.88

Table.2 Design Subgrade CBR values for borrow material of compacted

thickness of 400 mm
Borrow Design Subgrade CBR values(%) for existing
material CBR CBR values of
value(%)
1.5 % 2.0% 2.5 % 3.0% 5.0% 7.0%
7 3.75 4.22 4.59 4.90 6.34 6.86
8 3.93 4.44 4.85 5.41 6.97 7.00
9 4.10 4.64 5.24 5.83 7.59 8.30
10 4.35 4.94 5.79 6.48 8.51 9.35
11 4.40 5.00 5.91 6.61 8.73 9.58
12 4.53 5.37 6.23 6.97 9.26 10.19
13 4.66 5.62 6.53 7.33 9.78 10.79
14 4.77 5.85 6.80 7.65 10.26 11.36
15 4.86 6.08 7.09 7.99 10.74 11.92
16 4.99 6.29 7.35 8.30 11.22 12.45
17 5.26 6.50 7.64 8.60 11.66 12.97
18 5.41 6.71 7.85 8.88 12.12 13.49
19 5.57 6.91 8.09 9.17 12.53 13.98
20 5.71 7.10 8.39 9.44 12.96 14.47
30 6.98 8.75 10.37 11.83 16.65 18.77
40 8.00 10.11 12.03 13.81 19.74 22.43
50 8.88 11.27 13.46 15.50 22.43 25.54
Table.3 Design Subgrade CBR values for borrow material of compacted
thickness of 500 mm
Borrow Design Subgrade CBR values(%) for existing
material CBR CBR values of
value(%)
1.5 % 2.0% 2.5 % 3.0% 5.0% 7.0%
7 4.05 4.49 4.82 5.25 6.43 6.87
8 4.27 4.74 5.29 5.77 7.14 7.65
9 4.47 4.99 5.73 6.27 7.81 8.39
10 4.76 5.44 6.39 7.02 8.84 9.34
11 4.85 5.77 6.53 7.20 9.07 9.80
12 4.99 6.07 6.91 7.54 9.67 10.48
13 5.34 6.36 7.28 8.03 10.25 11.12
14 5.58 6.69 7.65 8.45 10.77 11.77
15 5.80 6.96 7.97 8.83 11.38 12.39
16 6.02 7.24 8.31 9.21 11.90 13.00
17 6.23 7.49 8.63 9.57 12.43 13.58
18 6.47 7.77 8.93 9.94 12.95 14.16
19 6.63 8.00 9.29 10.28 13.49 14.72
20 6.81 8.26 9.52 10.62 13.92 15.29
30 8.51 10.50 12.13 13.62 18.32 20.32
40 9.92 12.25 14.30 16.16 22.08 24.64
50 11.12 13.80 16.19 18.37 25.43 28.52

Table.4 Design Subgrade CBR values for borrow material of compacted

thickness of 600 mm
Borrow Design Subgrade CBR values(%) for existing
material CBR CBR values of
value(%)
1.5 % 2.0% 2.5 % 3.0% 5.0% 7.0%
7 4.28 4.68 4.98 5.47 6.54 6.87
8 4.53 4.97 5.60 6.05 7.25 7.67
9 4.76 5.49 6.10 6.60 7.96 8.46
10 5.27 6.15 6.85 7.45 9.07 9.68
11 5.40 6.29 7.02 7.63 9.32 9.95
12 5.70 6.67 7.57 8.13 9.98 10.67
13 6.00 7.03 7.88 8.59 10.61 11.37
14 6.28 7.38 8.30 9.05 11.23 12.06
15 6.55 7.72 8.69 9.50 11.83 12.72
16 6.82 8.06 9.07 9.93 12.41 13.38
17 7.08 8.38 9.45 10.37 13.00 14.02
18 7.38 8.68 9.81 10.78 13.57 14.66
19 7.58 9.00 10.17 11.18 14.12 15.23
20 7.82 9.29 10.52 11.58 14.66 15.88
30 9.92 11.92 13.64 15.13 19.64 21.46
40 11.68 14.16 16.29 18.17 23.95 26.38
50 13.24 16.10 18.65 20.85 27.85 30.81
 26
24
22
Design subgrade CBR Value (%)

20
18
Native soil CBR 7 %
16
14 5%

12
10 3%
8 2.5 %
2%
6
1.5 %
4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Borrow material CBR Value (%)
Figure. 2 Design Subgrade CBR values for the 300 mm compacted thickness of borrow
m aterial
 28
26
24
22
Design Subgrade CBR value (%)

Native soil CBR value 7 %

20
18 5%
16
14
12 3% 2.5 %
10
2%
8
1.5 %
6
4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Borrow m aterial CBR value (%)

Figure.3 Design Subgrade CBR values for 400 mm compacted thickness of borrow material
 30
28
26
24
Design subgrade CBR value (%)

22 Native soil CBR value 7 %

20
18 5%
16
14 3%
2.5 %
12
10 2%
1.5 %
8
6
4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Borrow material CBR value (%)

Figure.4 Design Subgrade CBR values for 500 mm compacted thickness of borrow material
 36
34
32
30
28
Design Subgrade CBR value(%)

26
24
Native soil CBR value 7%
22
20 5%
18
16
3% 2.5 %
14
12 2%
1.5 %
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Borrow m aterial CBR value (%)

Figure.5 Design Subgrade CBR values for 600 mm compacted thickness of borrow m aterial